The Supreme Court in the case Dilip (D) vs Satish observed that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived.
The bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and the Justice CT Ravikumar observed in an order passed in May, 2022, the bench stated that on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate, the electricity cannot be denied. Further, it is stated that all the electricity supply is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question.
It was observed that these remarks were made in an order setting aside a High Court order that had quashed an FIR lodged against a Tenant who allegedly forged signatures submitted to Electricity Board of landlord in No – Objection certificate.
In the present case, A petition under Section 17 was filled by the tenants of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act in the Court of the Rent Controller, Aurangabad, the petition filled seeking directions on the landlord to provide electricity connection at the said shop. After this petition got rejected, aggrieved with the same the tenant applied for supply of electricity in his own name on the basis of a “No Objection” letter and got supply of electricity in his own name to the said shop.
An FIR was filled by the landlord alleging that the no objection letter had been fabricated and the signatures of his brother had been forged by the tenant. The High Court quashed the FIR, while allowing the petition filled by the accused-tenant. It was noted by the Court that the tenant needed electricity for doing this business, but the landlord was not giving no objection certificate. The observations made by the High Court. Further, the Electricity Board seeks no objection of landlord only to verify that the possession of the tenant is authorised and there is no other purpose behind obtaining such no objection from landlord. The landlord at his own cost cannot prevent the tenant from availing such facility. However, the aforesaid circumstances need to be kept in mind and then the definition of forgery, cheating, etc. given in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 needs to be seen. In the present matter, It cannot be said that false record if any created has caused any harm to the property or person of the first informant.
At the Outset, In its order, the Apex Court bench noted that it is now a settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. On the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate, the electricity cannot be declined to a tenant. Further, All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question.
Moreover, the bench observed that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR.
The bench said that it cannot be said that fabrication and/or creation of records and/or forging a signature does not constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was stated that High Court completely overlooked the definition of cheating in Section 415 of the IPC.
Further, the bench directed that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued and subject to compliance by the tenants of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same, while allowing the appeal.
